About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13
that it's a hard job every day of the week. >> defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs of staff's general martin dempsey testified before the senate armed services committee on the defense department 2014 budget request. the pentagon budget request includes almost $527 billion in discretionary spending nearly 1% decrease from 2013. this is three hours and 45 minutes. >> good morning everybody. chuck hagel, general martin dempsey the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, accompanied by the department's comptroller undersecretary bob hailed for her hearing on department of defense fiscal year 2014 budget request and the posture of the u.s. armed forces we welcome secretary hagel on his first appearance as secretary of defense before this committee. we thank all of our witnesses for their service to our nation and to the soldiers sailors airmen and marines at home and in harm's way. we could never say that enough. your testimony today is a key component of the committees review of the fy2014 budget request for the department of defense. this year's request includes $526.6 billion
additional missile defense systems were needed to be deployed for the protection of the united states, whether domestically or abroad, would the russian government be consulted or informed before that decision was made? >> well, first, i can't answer for the president. that would be a decision for the president to make. i suspect have to reinvolve around treaty obligations, and we have before with other issues might be. >> in mah, the government requested meetings to take ac regularly to discuss the european missile shield. any talks to take play, and if there are plans for such talks, do they include any nato allies as part of the discussions? >> again, senator, i don't know about those talks that would be in purview of the secretary of state in the white house. i have not been consulted on any talks or possibility of what you're talking about. >> okay. you're not certain of whether there have been talks, but to your knowledge, there have not? n't know of any conversations of what you suggested on talks. >> i see time expired, thank you very much, and thank you, mr. chairman. >> than
of missil defense approach that i just identified one as the amount and the phased adaptive approach and alaska both pieces do you approve both parts? >> i do. >> on the brac issue, as i understanding your testimony and your budget, mr. secretary, there is a short-term cost that there was an additional brac improvements, but that cost is not in the 2014 budget request. you put it in the 2015 budgeta >> the money is in 2016, it is $2.4 million of additional funds. previous rounds you testified saved, i believe, $12 billion annually. was that the savings that you say exist from the created from the last ground? from all the previous rounds. if you would like more detail maybe you could bring it out. i think you on the 75th barack you might remember you were in the the senate at the time in 2005. you might remember that i kind of lead the opposition of that round unsuccessfully. my senior senator was on the other side. yorm how you voted on that. we'll get in to that. >> by support. >> okay. okay. >> yeah i came with the first it was bringing down our infrastructure to an artificially l
of defense, we talk about the post office and prepayments being made. there is one truism on both, o s the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook. yes. so it is not an issue is this just a quasi-government organization, both dod and you need prepayments. we're ultimately on the hook the taxpayer is. what concerns me in a time, admitted, mr. chairman your low liquidity. you're not really sure you can get down as low as two days later this year, at a time in which the discussions have been made and i have read about the board of governors and your role. you do believe you have a fiduciary duty in your role to the postal service and in your role, correct? >> mr. chairman, representative, yes. >> that means there's a trust. there's a trust with you and the board of governors not just strictly you but i believe with the postmaster general and others in this situation. what i keep hearing is, well we thought of and we're looking at that. we have a five-year plan that was many years ago. we have discussions that we want to do. we're exploring ideas. these are direct quotes from today, exploring h
of the defense intelligence agency spa capano current thfureat to the national securi. along with the national security agency, the national geospatial intelligence agency and the national reconnaissanceoffice and thinteencen etservices erts of the department of de that are also elements of the intelligence communy thatth direct clapper hits. director clapper while much of the information that you provide to policy makers in putting members of congress cannot be shared with the public because of its sensitivity and classification. the people who elected us to serve deserve the best information that we can publicly provide them. so we are glad that you and the general are with us this morning to do just that. among the challenges that we face is a self-inflicted wound, one with the fact that director clapper has rightly said amplify the other threats that we come from around the world that challenges the and prioritized cuts required by sequestration. this committee is interested in hearing from both of you today about the impact of the fy 2013 sequestration and the impact it's having on the in
areas. one, financial planning going forward at the departments and number two, missile defense and our ability to defend the homeland. i want to start that much discussion about sequestration that the current budget and the department will hope fully in the month of may comply with the scots that present short-term challenges of long-term challenges. in addition, they contemplate a renew commission process going forward. i would suggest of assessing sequestration in the short-term and long-term and cannot brac process that a component should conclude consideration to the degree with which we can reduce the prance overseas, reduce bases overseas command manpower overseas, consistent with essential imperative for national security. the first question i wanted to ask secretary hagel as to what extent is the department complying with these financial pressure is our ability to drive down overseas footprints. referable to reduce overseas and here at home if it can be done consistently national security and to what extent is it apart and engaged right now in that assessment and analysis? >> t
array to include a sophisticated air defense capability, depending who is operating in. a no-fly zone would not be without cost. >> even though the best testified he could with cruise missiles and within the patriot missiles in the right place is that we could establish a no-fly zone. >> patriot missiles i'm getting out of my league. that is essentially a point weapon. the theory is you could position patriot missiles outside of syria and somehow provide security outside the zone, given the nature of the pastry about then, which is not an area of a project or would be tough. >> and what's fascinating is now you are saying instead of the joint chiefs of staff that it has deteriorated so much that you now have questions whether we should supply weapto rebels are not, which the argues we shod have supplied them back ommended coing to published reports well heta o state, as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs f staff. it's remarkable. see you in the administration figure and say we don't know where the weapons are going. maybe if we help the people of writing from the beginning befor
't allow. and i'm not blaming the lawyer. my goodness, if i were his defense lawyer, you wouldn't ask him one thing without my permission and you would have to give a lot to get an answer to anything. all i'm suggesting is that we're at war, these two people fit the profile of folks who are trying to kill us, they're tied to overseas organizations potentially. why in the world can't our country have some time with this person in the national security legal system to find out about what he knows and how they planned this attack to make the rest of us safer? i believe in due process. and he in that system can go to a judge and say, i'm not an enemy combat expent the government would have to -- combatant and the government would have to prove you are. so he has due process there. but here's what i believe deeply, and then i'll turn it over to senator eye i can't telw hampshire. i believe the closer to get to your homeland, the more rights we have as a people to defend ourselves. i don't want a police state. i don't want to live in ath a country where you can't express who you are and what yo
military coalition group and so one year at least in my opinion as secretary of defense it's not clear enough to make any conclusions, inclusive adjustments to a policy recommendation on this is, mr. president, this is exactly what we should do. >> i had used two terms as i think are important, coherent and inclusive, because as i think as general dempsey suggested, should there be an immediate collapse of the assad government, there is the potential for civil strife unless the opposition is not only coherent but it embraces the three major traditions in the country, shia, sunni, four, christian and critic another context, we didn't have, and libya and again i will stand to be corrected, there was tribal rivalry but there wasn't quite such a traditional distinction of cleavage, sectarian cleavage in other areas also. and that is a very elusive objective. i thank you very much. >> if i could just add, do you mind? it's important to mention i think, you will hear some folks say we have to act now or we risk this become a sectarian conflict. i just want you to give my view of this. it is
approved actions for cia and defense personnel based upon legal guidance that has since been repudiated. the most important decision may have been to declare the geneva convention did not apply to al qaeda and taliban captives in afghanistan or guantÁnamo. the administration never specified what rules would app apply. the task force believes that u.s. defense intelligence professionals and servicemembers in harm's way need absolutely clear orders on the treatment of detainees, requiring at a minimum compliance with common article iii of the geneva convention. this was not done. civilian leaders and military commanders have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that their subordinates comply with laws of war. president obama has committed to observe the geneva convention through an executive order, but a future president could change it by the stroke of a pin. congress, one of our recommendations, needs to work with the administration to strengthen torture statute, the war crimes act and uniform criminal to justice to remove the loopholes that allow torture to occur. in terms of the c
to mainland china. it was president carter who unilaterally terminated the mutual defense in taiwan. presidents decide on their own whether allowing u.s. citizens to travel abroad. it was a presidential decision. he also revived our immigration policy. when congress failed to create a path for young immigrants to be brought and -- president implemented his own d.r.e.a.m. act. he waive deportation and said i will grant for permits to young immigrants. now it's not -- so presidential power increase transfer of power and presence have acted on their own so there has been a shift of power but the other part of the piece of the puzzle is the vast expansion of u.s. power. the founders lived the world's powers were in europe and now the united states has become the great world power so presidential power has increased both because the u.s. power has increased dramatically and the power that the u.s. government has been shifted from congress to the white house. so we no longer have the constitution designed for coequal branches of government. we now have a politically dominant executive bra
and the supreme court's rulings that have affirmed our individual right to self-defense and our individual right for freedom? and i believe i actually have an answer that the senate could coalesce around. you know, as i talk to the most avid gun owners in oklahoma, many who are opposing me trying to reach a compromise, the one question that they agree with me on is, if you could know as a gun owner, or whoever you are, if you have a gun and you're going to sell, if you could know that you were not selling that gun to somebody on the "do not buy" list -- you see, we've got all these words going on right now. the background check. there's no background check with the nics list. it's a check against a prohibited -- people who are prohibited from buying. and it's not a very good list, by the way, because the states haven't complied, the courts haven't complied with people that have been convicted of felony. we have a lot of problems in temples the "do not buy" list. so you actually need to think of this list as cient of like the do not -- kind of like the do not fly list that we have. nobody wants t
first line of defense and we need to step up. we need to be responsible. we need to get this passed. >> if i may, one thing, and that is, when it became possible that we would not have assault weapon ban or we would not have a prohibition on future sales of high-capacity magazines, it made a background check bill even more important for it to be as strong as it could be. because not having successes in terms of reducing the number of guns that are out there. 300 million guns out there already. this background check is really very, very important, and i thank you again, you and the task force, for your leadership on it. you and representative king for your leadership on presenting this bill in the house, and we hope to be able to say by the time we meet again that we have an overwhelmingnmber of come in a bipartisan way, of cosponsors and that the american people have weighein, not only forcosponsorship but for a vote. thank you all very much. >> thank you. >> house speaker john boehner also held his weekly briefing shortly after this one. in which he also addressed monday's boston b
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)